David Watt

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 years' imprisonment (less 18 months' credit for pre-trial custody) for making, possessing and distributing child pornography, sexual assault with a weapon, and sexual interference.

While babysitting his three nieces (six-month-old twins and a four-year-old), the appellant sexually abused them, filmed the abuse, and distributed the images on an Internet site devoted to made-to-order sadistic child pornography.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit despite being at the high end of the sentencing range.

The court emphasized the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in such cases and the unique and egregious circumstances of the offences.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation sought access to DVD audio recordings containing intercepted private communications between an FBI undercover operative and two terrorism convicts.

The recordings were subject to a sealing order at trial to protect the operative's identity.

The Court of Appeal granted CBC access on condition that the operative's voice be altered to disguise his identity before any publication or broadcast.

The Crown retained the right to review and approve the altered recordings prior to publication.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) offender with a long history of serious psychiatric illness, including sexual sadism and pedophilia.

The appellant sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure all-male facility at either the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) or Brockville Mental Health Centre to access escorted community privileges.

The Review Board majority refused the transfer, citing concerns about diminished quality of life.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to meaningfully consider the appellant's reintegration into society and by failing to assign appropriate weight to the appellant's reasonable preferences and the objective benefits of transfer.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault arising from a collision during a recreational hockey game.

The Court of Appeal allowed his initial appeal and ordered a new trial due to impermissible speculative reasoning by the trial judge.

On retrial, the appellant applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing unreasonable delay.

The trial judge dismissed the stay application and convicted the appellant again.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the delay in the retrial was unreasonable and breached the appellant's right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court held that the clock for calculating delay should have started from the date the Court of Appeal ordered the new trial, not from when the summons was issued.

The court also found that the Crown failed to prioritize the retrial and breached its duty to expedite proceedings by insisting on consecutive trial dates when earlier non-consecutive dates were available.

The appellant appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000, arguing that his guilty plea was neither voluntary nor fully informed due to ineffective assistance of counsel and his compromised mental state resulting from a prior motor vehicle accident.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud involving receipt of social services benefits to which he was not entitled over a period of more than four and one-half years.

He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served in the community and ordered to pay restitution of $52,027.36.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plea was voluntary and informed, that the appellant had the requisite mental capacity to enter a valid plea, and that trial counsel's performance was not deficient.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm while prohibited, uttering death threats, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, robbery, break and enter, mischief, and pointing a firearm.

The crimes involved armed home invasions in London.

The case depended entirely on eyewitness identification evidence, which was replete with problems.

The trial judge failed to provide adequate instructions regarding the dangers of in-dock identification and the flaws in the photo lineup procedure.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable, as no reasonable jury could have convicted on the evidence presented, and entered acquittals on all counts.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, challenging the trial judge's decision to dismiss his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through general warrants issued under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the investigative technique could have been authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, making the general warrant unavailable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the general warrant was properly issued because the investigative technique—prospective execution based on a future contingency to link drugs to the accused—was not contemplated by conventional search warrants, and there was no evasion of more stringent statutory requirements.

An appeal from a Divisional Court decision upholding a Tribunal award of damages to a farm equipment dealer against a manufacturer/distributor for improper non-renewal of a dealership agreement.

The core issue concerned the retrospective application of Ontario Regulation 123/06 (Dealership Agreements Regulation) to an existing dealership agreement and the proper interpretation of the mandatory renewal provisions.

The manufacturer provided notice of non-renewal under the original agreement terms, but the Tribunal found this non-compliant with the Regulation's mandatory process requiring disclosure of all reasons for non-renewal and an opportunity for the dealer to respond.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's liability findings and damages award, dismissed the manufacturer's appeal, and allowed the dealer's cross-appeal on costs by restoring the Tribunal's costs award that had been quashed by the Divisional Court.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 19, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2009, sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure facility.

Although the parties agreed a transfer was appropriate, the Board majority refused the transfer.

The appellant challenged the decision on grounds of procedural unfairness and failure to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board, finding that while procedural fairness was maintained and the Board's decision fell within the range of reasonable outcomes, the Board erred by failing to consider ordering an independent psychiatric assessment given the uncertainty surrounding the appellant's diagnosis.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual touching of a minor.

The trial proceeded on the basis of an acknowledged emotional intimacy between the appellant and the complainant, with the central issue being whether that intimacy extended to physical contact.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the use of certain evidence, including out-of-court statements by the appellant, prior consistent statements by the complainant, and evidence of an uncharged incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that while some instructions could have been more complete, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the burden of proof and credibility issues to the jury, and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice resulted from the omissions.

A lawyer convicted of possession of child pornography appealed his conviction and the terms of a section 161(1)(d) prohibition order limiting his Internet access.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches under section 8 relating to police handling of seized electronic devices but excluded only limited evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's Charter and exclusion analysis was reasonable and well-supported by evidence.

The court also upheld the Internet-limiting terms of the prohibition order, finding they were a reasonable response to the risk posed by the offender's possession of a significant volume of child pornography and carefully tailored to his specific circumstances.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of morphine and possession of morphine for the purpose of trafficking, as well as an eight-month sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of a key defence witness and failed to properly apply Gladue principles in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding that the trial judge properly rejected the defence evidence and adequately considered the appellant's Aboriginal background and personal circumstances in imposing a fit sentence.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on the respondent who had pled guilty to theft, possession of stolen property, flight from police, and two counts of failing to comply with the terms of a recognizance.

The sentencing judge imposed a 6-month sentence to be served consecutively to what the parties believed was a 12-month sentence then being served, for a global sentence of 18 months.

However, the respondent had completed his prior sentence approximately one month before sentencing.

The Crown and respondent agreed that the respondent should have received credit for 32 days of pre-disposition custody on the current charges, which would equate to 48 days with the applicable credit multiplier.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and reduced the sentence accordingly.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 14 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

The conviction arose from a second trial following a mistrial on a charge of aggravated assault of Tim Runge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in leaving assault causing bodily harm as an included offence to the jury, contending that the uncontested expert evidence of a serious and permanent brain injury established the elements of aggravated assault as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly left the included offence with the jury as there was an air of reality to it, and that defence counsel had requested the instruction.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings regarding aggravating factors.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 26 months imprisonment.

He appealed both conviction and sentence.

The trial judge found that the complainant, a 17-year-old first-year university student, was incapable of consenting to sexual activity due to her level of intoxication and unconsciousness during portions of the assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in understanding the distinction between "blacking out" and unconsciousness, in equating pain with lack of consent, and in drawing inferences about the complainant's intoxication.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding the trial judge's findings were supported by evidence and that the verdict was reasonable.

The appellant was convicted of two counts each of sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching involving his then nine-year-old granddaughter.

He was sentenced to 30 months concurrent.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the grandmother's testimony and alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's and her mother's evidence regarding disclosure.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the sentence based on fresh evidence regarding the victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, no error in the trial judge's analysis of inconsistencies and collusion allegations, and that the fresh evidence was inadmissible and would not have affected the sentence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.

The appellant, a dangerous offender, appealed his sentence of 10 years imprisonment followed by 10 years long-term supervision.

He argued that the custodial portion was unfit because the hearing judge improperly determined its length based on the time needed for rehabilitative programming rather than applying traditional sentencing principles of proportionality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that in dangerous offender proceedings under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, hearing judges may impose fixed-term sentences exceeding the normal range for the predicate offence to ensure access to necessary treatment programs in a penitentiary, subject to three constraints: the statutory maximum for the predicate offence, applicable sentencing principles, and evidence-based nexus to public protection.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his 15-year-old cousin.

The Crown relied on the complainant's pregnancy as corroborating evidence of the assault.

The application judge dismissed the appellant's section 276 application seeking to cross-examine the complainant about other sexual activity that could account for her pregnancy.

The trial judge, who took over after the application judge became unable to continue, held that he was bound by the application judge's ruling.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in refusing the cross-examination and that the trial judge erred in holding himself bound by the prior ruling.

The court ordered a new trial.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated November 16, 2017.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2012 for criminal harassment and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The Board found the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety due to his psychotic disorder, active substance use disorder, lack of prosocial behaviour and motivation, and continued use of marijuana despite clinical advice against it.

The Board imposed a conditional discharge with detention order provisions.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding he constituted a significant threat and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by unanimous opinion of the treatment team.